Why do humans enjoy music?

[ibanezmonster]

You do understand I had my tongue somewhat in cheek?

Oh, okay. 

[ibanezmonster]

Oh, really? 
Ok, Philo, next time I'll have to try to understand the profound craft of Soulja Boy a bit better, now, huh? 

[ibanezmonster]

Personally, I think you're quite incapable.

Me, too. Hmm... Do you understand the profound craft of Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers? I'm having a difficult time appreciating them as well. Any hints? 

[Hilltroll73]

Wow. I just recently joined GMG, and have been surfing the forum for clues. This thread has a very high BS quotient; if I were 40 years younger I would be flexing my biceps. At this late date, unfortunately, I can't flex much of anything.

[ibanezmonster]

Have you ever had the misfortune of waking up to "Baby, Baby, Baby, Oooooooooooo, Baby, Baby, Baby, Oooooooooooo?"

The current likes/dislikes on youtube for that video: 709,658 likes; 1,450,478 dislikes. Do you like that song, Philo? Seriously? 

[ibanezmonster]

Why would I wake up to the song?

I did, since the radio wakes me up.

And you are using Youtube as a barometer for what exactly?

I just think it's funny. Everyone knows about it, yet few actually like his music.

I appreciate it.

Well, I guess it does have some value- little girls have to have something to listen to.

[canninator]

Mate attraction and evolutionary fitness go hand in hand, at least so the theory usually runs. Of course, in many species, the male exhibits traits that are very showy for attracting mates but theoretically liable to invite predation, or possibly injury during intrasexual dominance battles. But as long as healthy young are produced before the males gets eaten, all is well for the genes Look, for instance, at the brilliant plumage of the males of numerous bird species versus the drab, cryptic coloration of the females and young. Then again, it's also hypothesized that these flashy traits can only develop in individuals with good health, ergo "sexiness" is equated with health and mastery of the environment. E.g. The redness of male Northern Cardinals has been linked to diet, and their brilliance of color to selection as mates.

I agree to a certain extent but post-copulatory sexual selection is a powerful evolutionary force that has permitted the evolution of distinct mating strategies that don't depend on conventional strategies for mate attraction (plumage etc). It has even permitted the evolution of sterile sperm castes to enable post-mating selection of kin sperm (Curr Biol [2008]18, 292-6).

As for female attractiveness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractiveness

Just how well those traits link to health and successful child-bearing is debated, but it's a common theory.

I don't debate the importance of attractiveness but would question your assertion (as I read it) that aspects of wealth only impinge on evolutionary fitness in males e.g. see J Biosoc Sci (2008)40, 339-58 and Phil Trans R Soc B (2010) 366, 344-56 and references contained therein.

[starrynight]

Other animals can't enjoy music?

[Florestan]

(Curr Biol [2008]18, 292-6).

J Biosoc Sci (2008)40, 339-58 and Phil Trans R Soc B (2010) 366, 344-56 and references contained therein.

Poor Grazioso... That's what happens when attacking with a public domain article --- one is checkmated with an appeal to (esoteric) authority. 

[karlhenning]

I have never used a Xenakis piece to entice a female sexually.

Think outside the cave . . . .

[canninator]

Poor Grazioso... That's what happens when attacking with a public domain article --- one is checkmated with an appeal to (esoteric) authority. 

I'm not sure I understand, in science it is standard practice to reference others work to validate your statements, how is this an appeal to authority? There is also nothing esoteric about Current Biology and the Transactions of the Royal Society. These are highly regarded journals in the biological sciences with a sound reputation of publishing high quality work intended for a broad readership.

I also have no problem with Wikipedia articles and do not perceive things as an attack. It is true, however, that any wikipedia article is, by necessity, a very condensed (and often skewed) appraisal of a very broad field. In my experience of Wikipedia articles in biology and the chemistry/physics interface, they barely qualify as showing depth of knowledge beyond mid-undergraduate.

Alternatively, you might have been yanking my chain, in which case 

[Grazioso]

I don't debate the importance of attractiveness but would question your assertion (as I read it) that aspects of wealth only impinge on evolutionary fitness in males e.g. see J Biosoc Sci (2008)40, 339-58 and Phil Trans R Soc B (2010) 366, 344-56 and references contained therein.

I'm no scientist or researcher, but it's been my pretty consistent observation that where attraction is concerned, males are primarily--or at least initially--interested in a female's physical attributes, whereas females are primarily interested in a male's status (i.e., power, wealth, social standing, competence, and the like.) Of course, I only say "primarily" because there's obviously more to it than that. A good-looking guy will turn women's heads just as quickly as a bombshell will get guys drooling.

Alternatively, you might have been yanking my chain, in which case 

I think he was joking around Some people are being half serious here while others are being entirely serious. Who is who? Who can say? Never the twain shall meet 

Anyway, back to the original topic:

Any alternative theories for the cultivation or enjoyment of music?

[Florestan]

Alternatively, you might have been yanking my chain, in which case 

I think he was joking around